724 / 822
sub-section, and the instrument contained a certifi
cate to that effect.
It was pointed out to the
Revenue Commissioners by the Council that this
in effect would mean that every conveyance on sale
stamped at the lower rate would have to be adjudged
duly stamped, as a subsequent purchaser would not
be Entitled to rely on the certificate in the deed as
conclusive evidence that it was properly stamped
at the lower rate. Following the representations
by the Council, the Minister for Finance on the
Committee Stage accepted an amendment to sub
section 13 (4)
the effect of which is that the exemp
tion of an instrument from the higher rate of duty
depends not upon the fact that the grantee or trans
feree falls within the exempted categories, but upon
the incorporation in the instrument of a certificate
to
the effect mentioned in the sub-section.
In
other words a subsequent purchaser is not bound
to inquire as to the accuracy or otherwise of the
statements in the certificate provided that the form
of the certificate is in accordance with Section 13 (4).
•
CALENDAR AND LAW
DIRECTORY, 1948
MEMBERS who have not already sent in an order
form for the Calendar should do so immediately if
they wish to secure a copy. Price 7/6, Post Free 8/-
EFFECT OF GUARANTEED
CHEQUES
THE Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal ot
September zyth contained a review of Paget's Law
of Banking, jth Edition, published by Butterworth
& Co.—price
255.
The
review printed
the
following extract from the book :
" It may be taken
that the marking of a cheque at the instance of a
customer does not in this country involve any
direct or immediate liability on the part of thr Banker
to the payee or any subsequent holder of the cheque.
The marking does not possess the essential char
acteristics of an acceptance required by
the Bills
of Exchange Act."
Solicitors completing sales
on behalf of vendors usually accept a Bank draft
or a cheque " marked good " by a bank in exchange
for the title deeds and when accepting a marked
cheque undoubtedly assume that it is as good as a
Banker's draft. The passage from the standard
work quoted above clearly implies that this assump
tion is incorrect. The following are passages from
other standard works on the subject: " A custom
has grown up among bankers themselves of marking
cheques as good for the purposes of clearance,
by which they become bound to one another.
As between the bankers themselves, accordingly,
this marking has an effect analogous to that of the
acceptance of a bill, but it does not give the holder
of the cheque a right against the banker who has
marked it." Hart's Law of Banks 4th Edition,
Vol i, Page 541.
" In trie absence of English authority it is difficult
to say what is the exact legal effect in this country
ot marking cheques ; but it is submitted that such
marking is not equivalent to an acceptance by the
banker, and that notwithstanding s. 75 of the Bills
of Exchange Act, 1882, the customer who has
requested his banker to mark a cheque cannot
countermand its payment.
It has been suggested
that
the banker would be bound to honour rhe
cheque on the ground of estoppel, if any one dealt
with his client on the faith of the marking and wire
thereby damnified." Grant's Law of Banks, 7th
Edition, Page 43.
"It was formerly the practice in this country to
use marked cheques for making payments against
documents of title, but, though the practice cannot
be said to be obsolete,
it is more usual at the
present day to make such payments by means of
transfer cheques at the Bank of England or bankers'
drafts ...... If the marking is not an acceptance
it is difficult to see on what grounds the banker can
be held liable." (Byles on Bills, zoth Edn Page 21).
PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1947
Section 33. Where—
(a)
a person sells or lets a dwelling in which
to his knowledge a person has been re
siding at any time during the preceding
three months while suffering
from an
infectious disease, and
(£) he did not before selling or letting the
dwelling give in the prescribed manner an
infected premises notice
to
the district
medical officer for the district in which the
dwelling is situated,
he shall be guilty of an offence under this section
and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof
to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the dis
cretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding three months or to both such fine and
such imprisonment.
Section 34- Where—
(a) the occupier of a dwelling (not being the
owner thereof) ceases to occupy the dwell
ing, and
(b)
a person has, to the knowledge o<
the
occupier, been residing in the dwelling at
any time during the preceding three months
while suffering from an infectious disease,
and
(f)
the occupier did not either before or
immediately after ceasing to occupy the
43